Adobe updates Creative Cloud: Pushes out Illustrator for iPad and full sky replacement in Photoshop Adobe has updated its Creative Cloud product suite with tweaks including a content authenticity tool for determining what has been faked in Photoshop. The software suite purveyor has also introduced a "replace sky" feature in the venerable photo editor as well as rolling out a vector graphics editor Illustrator for iPad. …
The concept of Adobe's wish to add content verification from end to end, from a supported camera all the way through, sounds nice but reality holds a somewhat different viewpoint:
What about RAW?
When a photographer shoots raw, as any good photographer does, it *must* be processed later, otherwise it is nothing but a series of meaningless bits. Now, quite a bit can be done inside ACR nowadays, from altering color mapping to patch spotting. Yet all of that can be included in the ACR processing, which is again an absolute requirement.
So what do you call authentic, when raw has to be processed but you can modify the photo within said process??
A very good question indeed.
The way I think of it is that if a series of rules are applied to the image as a whole, with the algorithm for that filter concocted without reference to the image being processed, then that is arguably more authentic than if someone has edited parts of the image, or processed it using an algorithm specific to the image to which it is to be applied.
Thinking here not just about one image, but HDR too, where multiple images are stitched together, ostensibly to iron out deficiences in the camera's sensors, but also used for image manipulation. Each of the multiple images can be weighted as to its contribution to the final image, for example, which is authentic in my view if it is applied to the whole stack of images and not to parts of them.
until websites support correctly:
http://www.embeddedmetadata.org/social-media-test-results.php
Instagram is the worst offender and could be turned around easily...
make sure your websites correctly attribute images/text and do not strip metadata.
It is a question of degree and context I suppose. What might be OK for a fine art landscape might not be acceptable for a photo-journalistic assignment. And its not as if the argument is new. Photographers have been manipulating images (at all stages of the creation process) since the medium began. I don't think in most contexts processing a RAW file and adjusting WB, contrast, sharpness, saturation etc. would be considered illegitimate manipulation. Nor local adjustments (as were done with dodge and burn in film days) to enhance the overall image (for tonal balance for example, or accentuate the subject) or to apply the digital equivalent of a GND filter. Otherwise, almost all the classic photography since the earliest days would have to be considered inauthentic.
I agree that in the real world it is hard to see how the kind of verification being proposed could be made to work in any practical way.
Why would I be interested when they are still trying to rent me software instead of selling it? I'll stick with a second rate product that I can either use gratis or actually buy* thanks.
*Or in exceptional circumstances I might steal it if you won't let me pay in a reasonable manner.
I pay $10/month for the newest versions of Photoshop, Lightroom and Bridge, on 2 computers. So $5/month per computer to have the newest bells and whistles.
I originally hated the whole subscription plan but I can't get up the energy to complain about $5/mth per unit.
From an IT support perspective, the subscription idea is not good. The time I have wasted dealing with subscribers who have glitches due to intermittent broadband, and administrative issues concerned with such things as "who paid the sub last time?" "On what credit card?" "But she's left, how do we change the name on the account?" "Where did she keep the licence details?" "Who has the key to that drawer?" , etc., etc.
That particular customer tried Affinity, and they love it. It paid for itself pretty well immediately when factoring in support and learning costs.
I was replying to someone who looked like they were in need of an option, not someone who is satisfied with Adobe. Good for you.
But I too added up the costs to 'rent' Photoshop, Illustrator, and Indesign, and if I added up the yearly cost, the entire Affinity suit still cost less as a one-time fee. And small intermittent updates are no-charge. Although my final decision was based on a number of factors, the one-time fee was really a pleasant bonus.
Given you can create any metadata you want, and anybody can strip them and reuse the picture (potentially with new metadata), this seems an exercise in futility. Not to mention you need to stay inside the Adobe ecosystem for this to even have the slightest meaning.
I'm sure this is just supposed to eventually help lawyers pounce on your kid if it photoshops itself into some big franchise movie screenshot. Beyond this, and especially concerning detecting doctored "fake news" pictures ("Yes, that is [PoliticalAdversary] eating a baby! See it with your own eyes!"), it's pretty much useless.
Besides, I think I remember there already has been a similar metadata watermark feature in an ancient version of Photoshop (around v.3-4 IIRC?). There too, beyond not registering inside other software, the watermark didn't survive relatively minor image alterations, effectively allowing you to erase it without too much effort, there even were Internet tutorials to help you do it.
its the reverse from what you think it is... its not about the ability to remove meta data its about ADDing
if you want to be able to prove that the photo was taken by bob and has not been altered i.e. hash signature preservation even after editing (prove you just altered the white balance and nothing else)
its all meaningless if websites strip the metadata
Exactly.
There is (or used to be) a content authentication tool for Canon (and probably Nikon) that could be used to prove in court that an evidence photo was unmodified after being taken by a camera.
It does seem that those tools were hacked: https://techcrunch.com/2011/04/28/both-nikon-and-canons-image-authentication-systems-busted/
Presumably Adobe hopes their system will be more secure.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
